1. Unless otherwise noted, all translations from the French, Ottoman, and Turkish are the author’s.
2. Ian Sample, “If Slime Mould Ruled the World: Given Enough Agar and Oats, How Would the Amoeba-Like Slime Mould Go About Colonising the Earth?” Guardian (September 21, 2012): http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2012/sep/21/slime-mould-world.
3. Ibid.
4. Glenn Greenwald and Ewan MacAskill, “Boundless Informant: The NSA’s Secret Tool to Track Global Surveillance Data,” Guardian (June 11, 2013): http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-global-datamining.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. With, granted, an undifferentiated Africa standing in for the pictorial target of the natural spread of mold and various nation-states standing in for the pictorial target of the unnatural spread of American data mining.
8. The subject of chapter 6.
9. Jack Balkin, “The Constitution in the National Surveillance State,” Minnesota Law Review 93 (1) (2008): 1–25, 4.
10. A report commissioned by the U.S. president after the revelations of the NSA’s wide-scale data collection, even as it recommends significant reforms to, and far more extensive regulation of, this collection, also situates NSA policy within a well-established tradition of privacy-related legal doctrine. It notes with regard to soliciting information from third-party databases, for example, that, “as originally enacted in 1978, FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] did not grant the government any authority to compel the production of such records. In 1998, however, after the Oklahoma City and first World Trade Center bombings, Congress amended FISA to authorize the FISC [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] to issue orders compelling the production of a narrow set of records from ‘a common carrier, public accommodation facility, physical storage facility or vehicle rental facility.’” Richard A. Clarke, Michael J. Morell, Geoffrey R. Stone, Cass R. Sunstein, and Peter Swire, “Liberty and Security in a Changing World: Report and Recommendations of the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies,” (December 12, 2013, 80–81): http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2013-12-12_rg_final_report.pdf.
11. Carl Schmitt, Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy, trans. Ellen Kennedy (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1988), 15.
12. Jack Balkin has made a convincing variation on this point as well in his “Information Power,” in Ramesh Subramanian and Eddan Katz, eds. The Global Flow of Information: Legal, Social, and Cultural Perspectives (New York: New York University Press, 2011), 232–46, 232.
13. Jussi Parikka, The Anthrobscene (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2014), 56.
14. For an extended review of this literature, see Ruth Miller, Snarl: In Defense of Stalled Traffic and Faulty Networks (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2013), 2–6.
15. Slavoj Žižek’s 2014 Absolute Recoil: Towards a New Foundation of Dialectical Materialism (New York: Verso, 2014) indicates a definite sea change in the scholarly trendiness of the “posthuman”—it may very well be going the way of “biopolitics” in the mid-2000s. Žižek, 6.
16. “So I would pause at this point to make a minor conclusion: in terms of intellectual history it is inaccurate to see a straightforward anti-Cartesianism in the very tradition that is often appealed to, today, to make the case for ‘Descartes’ error.’ Even Nietzsche—who would seem to be the philosopher to whom one might wish to appeal in order to get beyond the Cartesian prison . . . was not so clear in attributing the blame to Descartes. Nietzsche even suggested that the modern assassination of the soul was actually counter-Cartesian and, for that very reason, utterly pious. Nietzsche saw a religious fervor in modern philosophy’s extirpation of the soul, and a pseudo-Christian self-abnegation in the tradition, after Descartes, of ridding the world and life of anything like the soul.” Claire Colebrook, Sex after Life, vol. 2 of Essays on Extinction (Ann Arbor: Open Humanities Press / University of Michigan Press, 2014), 60.
17. Rosi Braidotti, Metamorphoses: Toward a Materialist Theory of Becoming (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002), 63.
18. Ibid., 136.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid., 63.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid., 228.
23. Colebrook, Sex after Life, 11.
24. Claire Colebrook, Death of the Posthuman, vol. 1 of Essays on Extinction (Ann Arbor: Open Humanities Press / University of Michigan Press, 2014), 20.
25. Ibid., 21.
26. Elizabeth Grosz, Becoming Undone: Darwinian Reflections on Life, Politics and Art (Durham: Duke University Press, 2011), 36.
27. Ibid.
28. Jane Bennett, Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things (Durham: Duke University Press, 2010), 62–63, 95.
29. Consider, for example, the temporal framing of “thought”—its mourned disappearance and its hoped-for reappearance—in Giorgio Agamben’s work: “Thought is form-of-life, life that cannot be segregated from its form; and anywhere the intimacy of this life appears, in the materiality of corporeal processes and of habitual ways of life no less than in theory, there and only there is thought. And it is this thought, this form-of-life, that abandoning naked life to ‘Man’ and to the ‘Citizen,’ who clothe it temporarily and represent it with their ‘rights,’ must become the guiding concept and the unitary center of the coming politics.” Giorgio Agamben, Means without End: Notes on Politics, trans. Vincenzo Binetti and Cesare Casarino (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000), 10.1.
30. For example, Bruno Latour, Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy, trans. Catherine Porter (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004); Jane Bennett, Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things (Durham: Duke University Press, 2010), 62–63, 95.
31. This is the classic articulation of social contract theory that one finds, for example, in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “On the Social Contract.” Among many others, see Christopher Bertram, Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Rousseau and the Social Contract (London: Routledge, 2004), 92.
32. Charles Tilly, Citizenship, Identity, and Social History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 3–4.
33. Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003), 140.
34. Giorgio Agamben, State of Exception, trans. Kevin Attell (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), 12–13.
35. As Carl Schmitt also put it, Carl Schmitt, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, trans. George Schwab (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), 5.
36. Carole Pateman, The Sexual Contract (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988), 1–2, 224.
37. “Women, womanhood and women’s bodies represent the private; they represent all that is excluded from the public sphere. In the patriarchal construction of the difference between masculinity and femininity, women lack the capacities necessary for political life. . . . in the story of the creation of civil society through an original agreement, women are brought into the new social order as inhabitants of a private sphere that is part of civil society and yet is separated from the public world of freedom and equality, rights, contract, interests, and citizenship.” Carole Pateman, The Disorder of Women: Democracy, Feminism and Political Theory (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1989), 4.
38. Indeed, as much as references to “biopolitics” were almost necessary to theoretical scholarship published in the late 1990s and early 2000s, by the early 2010s, writers and editors who had embraced the concept a few years earlier were denying any deep investment in it. Some even celebrated their own early lack of interest in “biopolitics,” expressing relief that those who had been duped into writing on it were now doing scholarly damage control. In this sense, Replication is a bit of a throwback. For examples of this rapid shift in scholarly fashion, see Austin Sarat and Jennifer L. Culbert, “Introduction: Interpreting the Violent State,” in Austin Sarat and Jennifer L. Culbert, eds., States of Violence: War, Capital Punishment, and Letting Die (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 1–24, 6, 11, 21. And then, two years later, the sea change: Austin Sarat, “Introduction: Toward New Conceptions of the Relationship of Law and Sovereignty under Conditions of Emergency,” in Austin Sarat, ed., Sovereignty, Emergency, Legality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 1–15, 3. For the sense of relief never to have been interested in biopolitics in the first place, see Nomi Stolzenberg, “Political Theology with a Difference,” USC Law Legal Studies Paper No. 12-23, 2012: http://lawweb.usc.edu/centers/cleo/working-papers/olin/documents/12_23_paper.pdf, 7.
39. Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, trans. D. Macey (New York: Picador Press, 2003), 243–44.
40. Ibid., 245.
41. Ibid., 241.
42. Giorgio Agamben, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, trans. Daniel Heller-Roazen (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995).
43. Rosi Braidotti, Transpositions: On Nomadic Ethics (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2006), 40.
44. Ibid.
45. Matthew Fuller and Andrew Goffey, Evil Media (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2012), 94.
46. Dennis Bray, Wetware: A Computer in Every Living Cell (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 26.
47. Tobias Rees, “Being Neurologically Human Today: Life and Science and Adult Cerebral Plasticity (An Ethical Analysis),” American Ethnologist 37 (1) (2010): 150–66, 157.
48. Ibid., 157–58.
49. Ibid., 157.
50. Alain Prochiantz, Machine-Esprit (Paris: Éditions Odile Jacob, 2001), 38–39.
51. Ibid., 112–13. For Thompson’s own interpretation of this issue, see his thoughtful criticism of the fact that “the search for differences or fundamental contrasts between the phenomena of organic and inorganic, of animate and inanimate things, has occupied many men’s minds, while the search for community of principles or essential similarities has been pursued by few; and the contrasts are apt to loom too large, great though they may be.” D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson, On Growth and Form, vol. 1, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1942), 9.
52. Prochiantz, Machine-Esprit, 101–2.
53. The elision here between “machine” and “computation” is deliberate. As Luciana Parisi and Stamatia Portanova have written, drawing on the work of Alfred North Whitehead, numbers (and, more narrowly, algorithms) are not simply expressions of human thought, not simply symbolic tools that help humans or subjective minds work through mathematical problems, but, themselves, thinking machines: “As Whitehead says (with specific reference to algebraic symbols), it is not human subjects that think through symbols, but the symbolic operations of algebra do the thinking for us.” Luciana Parisi and Stamatia Portanova, “Soft Thought (in Architecture and Choreography),” Computational Culture 1 (November 2011): http://computationalculture.net/article/soft-thought, 8.
54. Prochiantz, Machine-Esprit, 168.
55. Georges-Louis Leclerc Buffon, Oeuvres complètes de Buffon, ed. J. L. de Lanessan (Paris: Larousse, 1884).
56. William Thierry Preyer, Physiologie spéciale de l’embryon: recherches sur les phénomènes de la vie avant la naissance, trans. (from German into French) E. Wiet (Paris: Félix Alcan, 1887), 18.
57. For example, Christopher Kelty and Hannah Landecker, “A Theory of Animation: Cells, L-Systems, and Film,” Grey Room 17 (Fall 2004): 30–63, 49.
58. Ron Amundson, The Changing Role of the Embryo in Evolutionary Thought: Roots of Evo-Devo (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 5–6. See also Thompson, On Growth and Form, 339–40.
59. Catherine Walby, “Code Unknown: Histories of the Gene: The Century of the Gene by Evelyn Fox Keller; Who Wrote the Book of Life? A History of the Genetic Code by Lily E. Kay,” Social Studies of Science 31 (5) (October 2001): 779–91, 783. (Describing and questioning the criticisms of Lily E. Kay.)
60. Walby, “Code Unknown,” 786–87.
61. Catherine Mills, Futures of Reproduction: Bioethics and Biopolitics (London: Springer, 2011), 4.
62. Ibid., 3.
63. Ibid., 86.
64. Luciana Parisi, “Information Trading and Symbiotic Micropolitics,” Social Text 22 (3) (Fall 2004): 24–49, 29.
65. Annette Burfoot, “Human Remains: Identity Politics in the Face of Biotechnology,” Cultural Critique 53 (Winter 2003): 47–71, 57 (among others).
66. Braidotti, Transpositions, 40.
67. To provide one, of many, examples of this rhetoric, consider the first line of one (of many) of Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald’s editorials on the issue: “When I made the choice to report aggressively on top-secret NSA programs, I knew that I would inevitably be the target of all sorts of personal attacks and smears. You don’t challenge the most powerful state on earth and expect to do so without being attacked.” Over the course of this 762-word article, variations on the terms “attack,” “aggression,” and “challenge” appear eight times—that is, they make up 10 percent of the total text. Glenn Greenwald, “The Personal Side of Taking on the NSA: Emerging Smears,” Guardian (June 26, 2013): http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/26/nsa-revelations-response-to-smears.
68. Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 245.
69. For an excellent analysis of this argument, see Catherine Mills, “Linguistic Survival and Ethicality: Biopolitics, Subjectivity, and Testimony,” in A. Norris, ed., Remnants of Auschwitz (Durham: Duke University Press, 2005), 198–221, 198–202.
70. Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 245.
71. Ibid., 241.
72. Dragoş Chilea, “Le régime juridique de l’identité génétique de la personne en droit européen,” Curentul Juridic 43 (2010): 53–68, 55.
73. This is a process in which somatic nuclear material is inserted into an enucleated egg cell, which then begins to develop into an embryo and fetus.
74. Victoria Davion, “Coming Down to Earth on Cloning: An Ecofeminist Analysis of Homophobia in the Current Debate,” Hypatia 21 (4) (2006): 58–76, 63.
75. Braidotti, Metamorphoses, 196.
76. Susan L. Crockin, “The ‘Embryo’ Wars: At the Epicenter of Science, Law, Religion, and Politics,” Family Law Quarterly 39 (3) (2005): 599–632, 610.
77. Emine Elif Vatanoğlu-Lutz, “Research on Embryos in Turkey with Ethical and Legal Aspects / Etik ve yasal açıdan Türkiye’de embryo üzerinde araştırmalar,” Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association 13 (2012): 191–95, 193.
78. Consider, for example, the ongoing obsession with recycling—not just as way of dealing with waste but as an arguably more visible and widespread mode of political engagement than, say, voting.
79. For a representative example of this rhetoric, consider “the mother cell divides into two equal parts,” or “in some cases, several new individuals can spring from the mother cell.” Parramon’s Editorial Team, Essential Atlas of Biology (Hauppauge, NY: Barron’s Educational Series, 2006), 72.
80. Robert G. McKinnell and Marie A. Di Berardino, “The Biology of Cloning: History and Rationale,” BioScience 49 (11) (1999): 875–85, 883.
81. Sarah Franklin, Dolly Mixtures: The Remaking of Genealogy (Durham: Duke University Press, 2007), 20.
82. That is to say, it is a collection of “mother cells” and “daughter cells.”
83. Bray, Wetware.
84. Prochiantz, Machine-Ésprit.
85. Gabor Balazsi, Alexander van Oudenaarden, and James J. Collins, “Cellular Decision Making and Biological Noise: From Microbes to Mammals,” Cell 144 (March 18, 2011): 910–25.
86. Hannah Landecker, “Living Differently in Time: Plasticity, Temporality and Cellular Biotechnologies,” Culture Machine 7 (2005): http://www.culturemachine.net/index.php/cm/article/viewArticle/26/33.
87. Luciana Parisi, Abstract Sex: Philosophy, Bio-technology, and the Mutations of Desire (London: Continuum, 2004); Luciana Parisi, Contagious Architecture: Computation, Aesthetics, and Space (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2013).
88. Bahaeddin Şakir, Tıp Kanunu Dersleri (Istanbul: Mekteb-i Tıbbiye-yi Askeriye Matbaası, 1908).
89. Buffon, Oeuvres complètes.
90. Natalie Angier, “Molecule That Protects Embryo Is Tracked,” New York Times (May 8, 1990), C3.
91. Chilea, “Le régime juridique”; Council of Europe, “Draft Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine on the Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings with Explanatory Report and Parliamentary Assembly Opinion [Adopted, September 22, 1997],” International Legal Materials 36 (6) (1997): 1415–22; Alain Graf (Rapporteur general), Rapport final: Etats généraux de la bioéthique (Paris: Ministère de la santé et des sports, 2009); Vatanoğlu-Lutz, “Research on Embryos.”
1. Landecker, “Living Differently.”
2. For a review of some of this literature, seeBalazsi et al., “Cellular Decision Making.”
3. Bray repeatedly cautions against such an extrapolation from his work. Bray, Wetware, 142–43.
4. A search on Google Scholar for “cellular decision making” returns 968 results.
5. Bray, Wetware, 142–43.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid., 225.
8. Ibid., 226.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid., 9–10.
11. Ibid., 142–43.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid., 164–65.
14. Jennifer Gabrys, Digital Rubbish: A Natural History of Electronics (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2011), 112.
15. Ibid., 112–13.
16. Balazsi et al., “Cellular Decision Making,” 918.
17. Ibid., 918, 921.
18. Ibid., 910.
19. Ibid., 922.
20. Ibid., 911.
21. Ibid., 922.
22. Ibid., 916.
23. Tanya Latty and Madeleine Beekman, “Irrational Decision-Making in an Amoeboid Organism: Transitivity and Context Dependent Preferences,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B (2010): 1–6, 1.
24. Ibid., 5.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27. Parisi, Contagious Architecture.
28. Ibid., 172.
29. Ibid., 185.
30. Ibid., 219.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid., 245.
34. Ibid., 186.
35. Ibid., 185.
36. Ibid., xiii.
37. Ibid., 245.
38. Ibid.
39. Ibid., 169.
40. Ibid.
41. Ibid.
42. Ibid.
43. Parisi and Portanova, “Soft Thought,” 10.
44. Parisi, Contagious Architecture, xv.
45. Ibid.
46. Ibid., xvii–xviii.
47. Ibid., 175.
48. Paul Rabinow and Nikolas Rose, “Biopower Today,” BioSocieties 1 (2006): 195–217, 208.
49. Balazsi et al., “Cellular Decision Making,” 911.
50. Ibid.
51. Consider also Latty and Beekman’s discussion of slime mold. Latty and Beekman, “Irrational Decision-Making,” 5.
52. Balazsi et al., “Cellular Decision Making,” 912.
53. Ibid.
54. Landecker, “Living Differently.”
55. Ibid.
56. Ibid.
57. Ibid.
58. Ibid.
59. Myra J. Hird, “Feminist Engagements with Matter: Judith Butler: Live Theory by Vicki Kirby; Psychosomatic: Feminism and the Neurological Body by Elizabeth A. Wilson; Abstract Sex: Philosophy, Bio-technology, and the Mutations of Desire by Luciana Parisi; When Species Meet by Donna Haraway; Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning by Karen Barad,” Feminist Studies 35 (2) (2009), 329–46, 343–44.
60. Parisi, Abstract Sex, 49.
61. Ibid., 56–57.
62. Ibid.
1. Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 37.
2. Nancy Ehrenreich, ed., The Reproductive Rights Reader: Law, Medicine, and the Construction of Motherhood (New York: New York University Press, 2008).
3. For an analysis of the role of the embryo as person in recent French legislation, for example, see Bertrand Pulman, “The Issues Involved in Cloning: Sociology and Bioethics,” Revue française de sociologie 48 (2007): 129–56, 130. Consider also the spread of so-called chemical endangerment laws in various U.S. states. These laws target women who, postconception, engage in activities (drinking, drug taking, etc.) that are thought to produce a less than ideal environment for the embryo or fetus. In Alabama, women have been sentenced to up to ten years in prison for miscarrying a fetus after having taken drugs. See http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges.
4. Devin Henry, “Embryological Models in Ancient Philosophy,” Phronesis 50 (1) (2005): 1–42, 3.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid., 7.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid., 26–27.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid., 39.
13. Ibid.
14. “As Whitehead says (with specific reference to algebraic symbols), it is not human subjects that think through symbols, but the symbolic operations of algebra do the thinking for us.” Parisi and Portanova, “Soft Thought,” 8.
15. Florence Vienne, “Organic Molecules, Parasites, Urthiere: The Controversial Nature of Spermatic Animals,” in Suzanne Lettow, ed., Reproduction, Race, and Gender in Philosophy and the Early Life Sciences (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2014), 45–64, 48. See also Jacques Roger, “From Reproduction to the Problem of Life,” in Leslie Pearce Williams, trans., Buffon: A Life in Natural History (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997), 139.
16. Buffon, Oeuvres complètes, vol. 4, 150, 291.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid., 207.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid., 207–8.
21. Ibid., 292.
22. Ibid., 296.
23. Ibid., 310–11.
24. J. B. Demangeon, Anthropogénèse, ou, génération de l’homme, avec des vues de comparaison sur les reproductions des trois règnes de la nature (Paris: Rouen Frères, 1829), 11–13, 105–6.
25. Ibid., 140–41.
26. A. Aug. Duméril, L’évolution du foetus: thèse présentée et soutenue à la Faculté de Médecine de Paris (Paris: Imprimerie de Fain et Thunot, 1846), 46–47.
27. G. A. DeLattre, Traité pratique des accouchements des maladies des femmes et des enfants (Brest: Imprimerie et Lithographie Roger et Fils, 1863), 126.
28. Félix Hément, L’Origine des êtres vivants (Paris: Librairie Classique N. Fauvé et F. Nathan, 1889), 90.
29. Preyer, Physiologie spéciale de l’embryon, 18.
30. Ibid., 25–26.
31. Ibid., 52.
32. Ibid., 434.
33. Ibid., 151, 169, 435.
34. Ibid., 466–67.
35. Ibid., 475.
36. Ibid., 487–88.
37. William Preyer, Mental Development of the Child, trans. H. W. Brown (New York: Appleton, 1903), 16.
38. Şakir, Tıp Kanunu Dersleri, 15.
39. Ibid., 70.
40. Ibid., 85.
41. Ibid., 16.
42. Ibid.
43. Bray, Wetware, 222–23.
44. Buffon, Oeuvres complètes, vol. 4, 150.
45. Ibid., 153.
46. Ibid., 155.
47. Ibid., 155–56.
48. Ibid.
49. Ibid., 332–33.
50. Ibid., 157.
51. Ibid., 289–90.
52. Ibid.
53. Ibid., 290.
54. Ibid., 158.
55. Ibid., 167.
56. Ibid., 325.
57. Ibid., 325.
58. Ibid.
59. Ibid., 340.
60. Nick Hopwood, “‘Giving Body’ to Embryos: Modeling, Mechanism, and the Microtome in Late Nineteenth-Century Anatomy,” Isis 90 (3) (1999): 462–96, 470.
61. Ibid., 476.
62. Ibid.
63. Ibid., 492.
64. Ibid., 490.
65. Ibid.
66. Ibid.
67. Rees, “Being Neurologically Human,” 151.
68. Ibid.
69. Ibid.
70. Ibid.
71. Ibid., 157–58.
72. Ibid.
73. Ibid., 157.
74. Ibid.
75. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (New York: Appleton, 1915), 88.
1. Latour, Politics of Nature.
2. For a fascinating feminist analysis of this biological work challenging the mastery of the gene (especially that initiated by Barbara McClintock), see Braidotti, Transpositions, 5–6, and Parisi, Abstract Sex, 49, 56–57.
3. William L. Laurence, “Life Is Created without Parents: Dr. Harvey of Princeton Tells Philosophers of Results with Fragments of Eggs, New View of Cytoplasm,” New York Times (November 28, 1937): 1–2, 2.
4. Ibid.
5. “Change of Embryo into Cell Depicted: Yale Scientist Describes Stage at Which Protoplasm Forms Structure of Organs, Cell Evolution Shown,” New York Times (July 4, 1939): 17, 17.
6. Ibid.
7. Miller, Snarl, 55–59.
8. Pulman, “Issues Involved in Cloning,” 149.
9. Lynn K. Nyhart and Scott Lidgard, “Individuals at the Center of Biology: Rudolf Leuckart’s Polymorphismus der Individuen and the Ongoing Narrative of Parts and Wholes,” Journal of the History of Biology 44 (2011): 373–443, 373.
10. Ibid., 375.
11. Ibid., 379.
12. Ibid., 380.
13. Ibid., 398.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, “Hybrids and Chimeras: A Report on the Findings of the Consultation,” (October 2007): http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/Hybrids_Report.pdf, 2.6.
17. Ibid., appendix A, pdf, 25.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid., 1.2.1, pdf, 29.
20. Ibid., 5.18. pdf, 13.
21. Ibid., 5.22. pdf, 14.
22. Ibid., 5.1.7. pdf, 45.
23. Davion, “Coming Down to Earth,” 63.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid., 63–64.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid., 66.
29. Ibid., 65.
30. Ibid., 74.
31. Parisi, Abstract Sex, 195–96.
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid., 174.
34. Ibid., 122.
35. Ibid.
36. Ibid., 195–96.
37. Giovanni Maio, “The Embryo in Relationships: A French Debate on Stem Cell Research,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (5) (2004): 583–602, 588–89.
38. Ibid.
39. Ibid., 589.
40. Ibid.
41. Ibid., 592.
42. Chilea, “Le régime juridique,” 55.
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid., 67.
45. As the earlier policy was described in Graf, Rapport final, 45.
46. See also Pulman, “Issues Involved in Cloning,” 142.
47. Jean-François Thery, Frédéric Salat Baroux, and Christine Le Bihan Graf, “Les lois de bioéthique: cinq ans après” (Paris: Conseil d’Etat, December 1999): http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/rapports-publics/994001756/index.shtml, 5.
48. Ibid.
49. Ibid., 8.
50. Ibid., 9.
51. Ibid., 7.
52. Council of Europe, “Draft Additional Protocol,” 1415.
53. Ibid.
54. Ibid.
55. Ibid.
56. Ibid.
57. Ibid.
58. Consider, for example, the reaction to the French interpretation of this European law as described by Pulman, “Issues Involved in Cloning,” 150.
59. Ibid., 129–30.
60. Ibid., 145.
61. Ibid.
62. Ibid.
63. Ibid., 146.
64. Ibid.
65. Ibid.
66. Ibid., 147.
67. Franklin, Dolly Mixtures, 27.
68. Pulman, “Issues Involved in Cloning,” 147.
69. Ruth F. Chadwick, “Cloning,” Philosophy 57 (220) (1982): 201–9, 204.
70. McKinnell and Di Berardino, “Biology of Cloning,” 883.
71. Ibid.
72. Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 241.
73. For a criticism of this association from the direction of feminist theory, see Parisi, Abstract Sex, 49, 56–57.
1. Gabrys, Digital Rubbish, 89.
2. Parikka, The Anthrobscene, 41.
3. Gabrys, Digital Rubbish, 67.
4. Ibid., 120–21.
5. Ibid., 125.
6. Ibid., 89.
7. Ibid., 139.
8. Ibid., 150.
9. Fuller and Goffey, Evil Media, 101.
10. Despite Buffon’s unusual eighteenth-century dismissal of the popular model of female reproductive passivity and male reproductive activity, however, it was not the seeming equality of sexual or reproductive behavior that leant to Buffon’s work its significance to the study of gender. On the contrary, regardless of whether commentators and scientists worked on the assumption that males and females were equally active or on the assumption that males acted on passive females, all of their writing suggested that gender was the key determinant of what thought and life, what information and matter, would be stored, processed, and then disposed of. All of these writers made clear that, in the realm of reproduction, life, and thought, waste is a problem of gender. It is nice, in other words, to recognize that Buffon did not follow what is ordinarily viewed as the Aristotelian, male-centered model of reproduction—but this refusal to accept female reproductive passivity is not what lends to his work its relevance to nonhuman biopolitical democracy.
11. Vienne, “Organic Molecules,” 48–49.
12. Buffon, Oeuvres complètes, vol. 4, 207–8.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid., 238.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid., 337.
18. And there is thus, for example, no concern about a “mother’s” discrete, female body either “accepting” or “rejecting” the embryo’s discrete, male or female body. For one example (of many) of this rhetoric, see Angier, “Molecule That Protects Embryo,” C3. Intriguingly, one of the first cloned interspecies hybrids was created in order to address the problem of hostile maternal environments. Aline Ferreira, “Primate Tales: Interspecies Pregnancy and Chimerical Beings,” Science Fiction Studies 35 (2) (2008): 223–37, 223.
19. Hément, L’Origine, 88–89.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid., 109–10.
22. Ibid., 106.
23. Charles Sedgwick Minot, Human Embryology (New York: Macmillan, 1897), 70.
24. For an alternative articulation of the importance of relations rather than taxonomy, see Thompson, On Growth and Form, 342.
25. Minot, Human Embryology, 79.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid., 82–83.
29. Ibid., 84.
30. Ibid.
31. Parisi (obliquely) challenges this association between asexual reproduction and death in Abstract Sex, 72–73.
32. Şakir, Tıp Kanunu Dersleri, 81.
33. Ibid., 97.
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid., 99.
36. Ibid., 105.
37. Fatih Karaçalı, “Çöplükte cenin skandalı,” Hürriyet (July 25, 2003): http://hurarsiv.hurriyet.com.tr/goster/haber.aspx?id=161318.
38. Eraydın Aytekin, “Postayla cenin gönderildi,” Hürriyet (March 18, 2003): http://hurarsiv.hurriyet.com.tr/goster/haber.aspx?id=134375.
39. Seçkin Kırarslan, “Zonguldak’ta mezarlıkta cenin bulundu,” Hürriyet (February 9, 2007): http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/5922909.asp.
40. “Çöplükte cenin bulundu,” Hürriyet (January 10, 2010): http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/13435999.asp.
41. Vatanoğlu-Lutz, “Research on Embryos,” 192.
42. Ibid., 193.
43. Ibid., 194. For Vatanoğlu-Lutz’s recommendations, see ibid., 195.
44. Ibid., 194. For Vatanoğlu-Lutz’s recommendations, see ibid., 195.
45. Stephanie Hennette-Vauchez, “Words Count: How Interest in Stem Cells Has Made the Embryo Available—a Look at the French Law of Bioethics,” Medical Law Review 17 (Spring 2009): 52–75, 53.
46. Ibid.
47. Ibid., 55.
48. Ibid.
49. Ibid., 71.
50. Crockin, “Embryo Wars,” 610.
51. Ibid.
52. Ibid.
53. As Aline Ferreira has argued, “While there might be no such thing as scientifically fixed species identities, morally we rely on the notion of fixed species identities in the way we live our lives and treat other creatures. The sf texts considered in this paper challenge our certainty in such actions.” Ferreira, “Primate Tales,” 223.
54. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, “Hybrids and Chimeras,” 2.3. pdf 58–59.
1. The case study here is not a complete, narrative history of surveillance and data mining in the United States from the 1970s to the present. Rather, what follows is an impressionistic, yet close, reading of a small number of documents related to the collection of metadata in the early 2000s.
2. For a more extended analysis of the literature making this claim, see Ruth Miller, The Limits of Bodily Integrity: Abortion, Adultery, and Rape Legislation in Comparative Perspective (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), 3–6.
3. Seth F. Kreimer, “Watching the Watchers: Surveillance, Transparency, and Political Freedom in the War on Terror,” Journal of Constitutional Law 7 (1) (2004): 133–81, 155.
4. Ibid., 173.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid., 177.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid., 181.
9. Christopher Slobogin, “Government Data Mining and the Fourth Amendment,” University of Chicago Law School’s Conference on Surveillance (June 15–16, 2007): 1–21, 1.
10. Ibid., 2.
11. Ibid., 4.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid., 18.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Slobogin expands on this taxonomy in Christopher Slobogin, Privacy at Risk: The New Government Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), 361–83.
19. Jack Balkin, “The Constitution in the National Surveillance State,” Minnesota Law Review 93 (1) (2008): 1–25, 3.
20. Ibid., 6.
21. Ibid., 22.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid., 18.
24. Balkin, “Information Power,” 232.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid., 244.
27. Ibid., 233.
28. Ibid., 234–35.
29. Ibid., 235.
30. Ibid., 236.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid., 236–37.
35. Ibid., 238.
36. Ibid., 238–39.
37. And complementing, perhaps, the “alternative materialism for the geophysical media age” proposed by Parikka, The Anthrobscene, 5.
38. Parisi, Contagious Architecture, xv.
39. Fuller and Goffey, Evil Media, 97.
40. Kenneth Weinstein, “Proposed Amendment to Department of Defense Procedures to Permit the National Security Agency to Conduct Analysis of Communications Metadata Associated with Persons in the United States” (November 20, 2007): https://www.aclu.org/files/natsec/nsa/20130816/NSA%20Memo%20to%20DOD%20-%20Proposed%20Amendment%20to%20Conduct%20Analysis%20of%20Metadata.pdf, 2.
41. Ibid.
42. Throughout these conversations, NSA agents repeatedly insist that their relationship to metadata adheres to conventional, post–Oklahoma City bombing and post–PATRIOT Act, Fourth Amendment interpretation. Clarke et al., “Liberty and Security,” 80–81.
43. Ibid., 5.
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid., 9.
46. The report was reissued in an almost identical form in 2011, with the following cover letter: “We believe that making this document available to all Members of Congress, as we did with a similar document in December 2009, is an effective way to inform the legislative debate about reauthorization of Section 215. However, as you know, it is critical that Members understand the importance to national security of maintaining the secrecy of these programs, and that the SSCI’s plan to make the document available to other Members is subject to the strict rules set forth below.” Ronald Weich, “Report on the National Security Agency’s Bulk Collection Programs for USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization” (February 2, 2011): http://fas.org/irp/news/2013/07/2011_bulk.pdf, 1.
47. “Report on the National Security Agency’s Bulk Collection Programs Affected by USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization” (December 14, 2009): https://www.aclu.org/files/natsec/nsa/20130816/2009%20OIG%20Report%20on%20Bulk%20Collection.pdf, 3.
48. Ibid., 1.
49. Ibid.
50. Ibid., 4.
51. Ibid.
52. Ibid.
53. “Government Report in Response to FISC Primary Order of July 9, 2009” (August 20, 2009): http://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fisc-081909.pdf, 58 (p. 14 of 110 in the PDF).
54. Ibid., 58–59; pdf, 14–15.
55. Clarke et al., “Liberty and Security,” 100–104.
56. “Government Report in Response,” 59; pdf, 15.
57. “Declaration of Lieutenant General Keith B. Alexander, United States Army, Director of the National Security Agency,” in ibid., 75; pdf, 31.
58. Ibid., 82; pdf, 38.
59. Ibid., 88; pdf, 44.
60. Ibid.
61. “Summary of DNR and DNI Co-Travel Analytics” (October, 2012): https://www.aclu.org/files/natsec/nsa/20140130/2013.12.10%20Cotraveler%20Overview.pdf, 4.
62. Ibid.
63. Ibid., 5.
64. Ibid.
65. Ibid., 8.
66. Ibid., 9.
67. For example, ibid., 11.
68. Ibid., 17.
69. Clarke et al., “Liberty and Security,” 10.
70. Ibid.
71. Ibid., 17.
72. Ibid.
73. Ibid.
74. This program was suspended in 2009 because of the compliance issues noted earlier, restarted in 2010, and then abandoned completely in 2011.
75. Clarke et al., “Liberty and Security,” 83.
76. Ibid., 98.
77. Ibid., 108.
78. Ibid., 120–21.
79. Between June 2013 and June 2014, the Guardian, according to its online search engine, used the term “data mining” 14,600 times, that is, on average, 40 repetitions every day.
1. Consider, for example, the Virek figure in William Gibson, Count Zero (New York: Penguin, 1986).
2. In the way that reporters such as Glenn Greenwald “target” NSA agents.
3. In the way that NSA agents “target” citizens.
4. That is, the opposite of the Schmittian exception or miracle as it is articulated in Carl Schmitt, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, trans. George Schwab (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), 5.
5. Ehrenreich, introduction to Reproductive Rights Reader, 1.
6. Carl Schmitt, Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy, trans. Ellen Kennedy (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1992), 34.